Obama's Budget Proposal Slashes National Parks Budget by 13%

The National Park Service announced today that the "President’s Fiscal Year 2014 budget requests $2.6 billion to support the critical conservation, preservation, and recreation mission of the National Park Service."

This request represents a 13% reduction in the amount from the original 2013 NPS budget, which gave total budget authority to the NPS in the amount of $2.99 billion. That figure was recently reduced by 5% as a result of sequestration, which brought the NPS budget down to roughly $2.84 billion for fiscal year 2013. When compared to the revised sequestration budget, the President’s budget is still 8.5% below 2013 levels.

More importantly, the President’s 2014 budget request takes National Park funding back to 2004 levels, when the NPS had $2.56 billion in total budget authority. Indeed, each year since 2010, when total NPS budget authority reached $3.16 billion, the budget for National Parks has decreased.

According to the National Parks Traveler, the President's 2014 budget:

"calls for a reduction of more than 100 full-time employees to an agency that currently has 900 full-time vacancies"

"The budget also calls for a reduction of 92 employees under park operations, and 30 from the construction programs."

"According to a synopsis of the budget provided by the department, the proposal calls for more than $600 million in programmatic reductions to offset spending. It also would sustain current administrative cost reductions in travel, contract services, and supplies and equipment that would save $217 million."

Given that Obama's overall Federal spending remains relatively flat in 2014, versus 2013, the decision to reduce the National Parks budget in the amount he's requesting is extremely disappointing. Are National Parks a lower priority when compared to other government agencies?

For more details on what's in the NPS budget, you can click here to read the NPS press release.


Jeff
Hiking in Glacier.com

Which park units generate the most spending and jobs?

Earlier this week I mentioned that the National Park Service had published a report that measures the economic impact that national parks have on local communities. Today I wanted to dig a little deeper into the data to see which parks generate the most spending and the most jobs for their respective communities.

Which parks generate the most spending by visitors?

The chart below shows the top 10 park units in terms of overall spending generated by visitors in 2011. I was a little surprised by these results. Generally speaking, I figured that the park units with the most visitors would also have the highest amount of total spending by its visitors. Not so. For example: although the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area ranks 32nd in the total number of visitors for 2011, it ranked 9th in the total amount of spending generated by visitors. Moreover, only five parks that ranked in the top 10 for visitors in 2011, also ranked in the top 10 for visitor spending:

Which park units supported the most jobs?

This analysis was more in line with what I expected. Generally speaking, the park units with the most visitors tended to support the most jobs for the surrounding local communities:

Great Smoky Mountains NP	11,418
Grand Canyon NP	7,361
Grand Teton NP	6,352
Yellowstone NP	5,041
Yosemite NP	5,003
Blue Ridge PKWY	4,379
Acadia NP	2,970
Glen Canyon NRA	2,755
Rocky Mountain NP	2,742
Denali NP & Preserve	2,669

Which park units generated the most spending on a per visitor basis?

Finally, I wanted to see which park units generated the most spending on a per visitor basis. These results were quite interesting. Each of the park units making the top 10 in this category were in Alaska. At first glance you might think that this must seem like some statistical anomaly. However, given how remote each of these parks are from civilization, the cost of services is likely far greater than in the lower 48. I would also guess that transportation costs are likely the biggest drivers in spending. My guess is that many of these parks have local airports and local air services that benefit from park visitors.

Yukon-Charley Rivers NPRES	$1,144
Denali NP & PRES	$394
Aniakchak NM & PRES	$368
Bering Land Bridge NPRES	$345
Gates of the Arctic NP & PRES	$345
Cape Krusenstern NM	$345
Kobuk Valley NP	$344
Noatak NPRES	$344
Lake Clark NP & PRES	$344
Katmai NP & PRES	$257

Not on the list above, but ranked 11th, is Grand Teton National Park, which makes it the highest ranked park outside of Alaska in terms of spending on a per visitor basis ($169).

The George Washington Memorial Parkway in Washington DC has the distinction of having the lowest amount of spending on a per visitor basis - only $4.63.

The lowest ranked national park is Glacier Bay National Park & Preserve in Alaska. On average, visitors only spend $10.63. Well, you might be asking yourself why this park isn't ranked much higher - given that it's in Alaska. According to the park website; "Most visitors to Glacier Bay see the park from large cruise ships with thousands of passengers. These visitors do not go ashore in the park; instead National Park Service naturalists board the ship to share their knowledge about the park and its wildlife during a day-long cruise in the bay."

I would interpret this to mean that the NPS doesn't count these dollars as being spent in a local community.

To view the entire NPS report, please click here.



Jeff
Glacier National Park Hiking

Will sequestration really delay the opening of the Going-to-the-Sun Road?

Well, it looks like the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees (CNPSR) is at once it again. Yesterday they published a press release that details information (purportedly leaked to them by the National Park Service) on how sequestration-related cuts will be implemented in our national parks. In the release, the CNPSR provides this short blurb that's clearly intended to leave the American public quivering in our hiking boots:

"Now the specific impact of the sequestration meat-cleaver on America’s national parks is becoming clearer and even more alarming."

In addition to the details on nine other parks, the CNPSR provides some information concerning Glacier:

Glacier National Park in MT will delay opening the Going-to-the-Sun Road by two weeks, the only road which provides access to the entire park. In previous instances, closures of Going-to-the-Sun Road have resulted in financial distress for surrounding communities and concessions well into millions in lost revenues.

This really makes absolutely no sense on several levels:

1) From a purely financial perspective, how would Glacier save any meaningful dollars by delaying the opening of the Going-to-the-Sun Road by two weeks? The same amount of work still has to be done to clear the road - right?

2) Why would Glacier cut off its nose to spite its face? If you were running a business, wouldn't you do the things that would generate the greatest amounts of revenue? Purposely delaying the opening of the main road through the park only decreases the amount of revenues the park collects during its short season - by two weeks - thus exacerbating the situation the NPS and Federal Government find themselves in. Not only would park revenues be reduced, but all the taxes generated by travelers would also be potentially reduced.

3) What kind of an evil person, whether it be in the Obama Administration, the National Park Service, or at Glacier National Park, would make the decision to purposely inflict pain on the surrounding communities and concessions - knowing full well that there are many, many other low-priority projects that could take a back seat?

4) Most importantly, this will never happen - even if sequestration is allowed to pass. These are simply scare tactics being used by special interest groups around the country to scare Americans into believing that they must pay more in taxes. As I fully explained in my blog posting on Tuesday, sequestration will only cut $44 billion out of the overall federal budget in 2013. This amounts to a 1.16% cut in spending - not the 5% that continues to be thrown around by NPS Director Jon Jarvis and the CNPSR. Effectively, sequestration would reduce the National Park Service budget from $2.99 billion to $2.96 billion.

Even if we were to assume that Jarvis is correct, a cut of 5% would only draw the NPS budget down to $2.84 billion - which is still higher than the amount that the NPS spent in 2008, or any year before that. If I'm not mistaken, the Going-to-the-Sun Road was cleared of snow in 2008, and in every year before that.

In my view the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees is providing false and/or misleading information concerning sequestration in order to scare Americans into believing that the only solution to all of our problems is more government spending.


Jeff
Glacier National Park Hiking

National Parks, Sequestration and Scare Tactics

The latest dire warnings from politicians, news media outlets, pundits and special interest groups are currently focused on an inside-the-beltway term known as sequestration.

Sequestration refers to the across-the-board budget cuts that will take effect on March 1st - unless an agreement on deficit reduction can be reached beforehand. This "gimmick" was agreed upon by both the president and congress several months ago in order to force both sides to come to some agreement on spending reductions.

This blog posting will focus on the impact sequestration will have on national parks. Most importantly, it will focus on a leaked memo from National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis, which makes very little sense from my perch.

First off, let me show three graphs to help explain where we are, and where we've come from in terms of spending. The first graph shows total federal spending since 1999. The analysis begins with this year because 1999 was the first year I could find NPS budget figures. For all three graphs 2013 figures are current estimates. The following federal spending data comes from the Whitehouse website, and the figures quoted are in trillions:

As you can see, spending at the federal level has risen sharply over the last several years. However, increases in spending on national parks have been relatively modest. In fact, the National Park Service budget has seen small declines every year since 2010. The following graph shows the total NPS budget authority, which was compiled using data from the NPS Budget History, and the NPS Green Book. The numbers quoted here are in billions:

To look at this data a little differently, here's a chart showing total NPS budget authority as a percentage of total federal spending. As you can see, the NPS share of the overall pie has been getting smaller over the last decade (which simply means the rest of the federal government is growing much faster than the NPS budget):

Late last month the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees published a leaked memo from National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis, which stated that the NPS should assume a 5% decrease in the 2013 budget as a result of the impending sequestration. I find this figure to be a little curious. The sequestration calls for a cut of $85 billion to the 2013 federal budget, which amounts to only a 2.24% decrease in the overall federal budget.

Moreover, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, only $44 billion would actually be cut out of the 2013 budget. This is due to the sequestration taking effect on March 1st, which is already 5 months into the federal fiscal year which began on October 1st. This means only 1.16% of the 2013 budget is scheduled to be cut if sequestration goes into effect.

So why is Jarvis stating that 5% needs to be cut from the NPS budget? Or, why would the president decide to cut NPS funding at a higher rate than the rest of the budget? 

A budget cut of 1.16% would reduce the National Park Service budget from $2.99 billion, down to $2.96 billion. A cut of 2.24% would reduce the NPS budget down to $2.90 billion. Even if we were to assume that the NPS Director is correct (which I don't), a cut of 5% would draw the NPS budget down to $2.84 billion - which is still higher than the amount that the NPS spent in 2008, or any year before that.

So when I see headlines from the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees that reads "Sequestration Budget Cuts Would Turn National Parks Into Ghost Towns", or from the National Parks Conservation Association; "Proof Positive: Our National Parks Are in Peril", I can't help but be a little skeptical.

Then, when I read things like "all national parks should be prepared for reduced hours and fewer services", or "NPS said cuts could include closing of campgrounds and hiking trails. Interpretive programs could also be curtailed" or "If these cuts go into effect, it appears they will harm every one of the 398 parks and monuments in the system as well as park rangers, tourism-dependent businesses and communities, and the millions of Americans who rely on national parks for affordable vacations", I can't help but conclude that these organizations and news media outlets are simply using scare tactics to get cash-strapped Americans to pony up more tax dollars.

I'm calling BS on all this. Certainly there are many smart people in NPS management that can figure how to operate off the same amount of money they were receiving just a couple of years ago. And, for that matter, the same goes for all the other agencies and programs in Washington DC, whose special interest groups are likely using the same scare tactics.


Jeff
Hiking in Glacier National Park

New push for Cell Phones, Internet Access in National Parks

Do cell phones and internet Wi-Fi belong in national parks? Apparently the National Park Service thinks so.

The National Park Hospitality Association, a national trade association that represents businesses that provide lodging, food services, equipment rentals, transportation and other visitor services in the National Park System, is strongly advocating the expansion of cellular and internet “connectivity” inside national parks. This upcoming March the association will be holding it's annual meeting in Washington DC. Among the six agenda items is "Cell and WiFi access enhancement efforts". In their December 2012 Newsletter, the NPHA published this news item:

NPS/NPHA EFFORTS TO ENHANCE CELL AND WIFI SERVICE IN PARKS

Verizon and a team involving ViaSat brought temporary top-notch internet and cellular telephone service to Grand Canyon National Park’s North Rim for NPHA’s Grand Thoughts at the Grand Canyon. The infrastructure was nearly invisible and the resulting capabilities were widely praised – and prompted NPS Deputy Director Peggy O’Dell to propose a pilot effort in five parks as a team. NPHA members submitted a list of 11 parks to NPS along with a project overview which included the following goals:

1) Provide a basic level of non-fee internet access at all major, developed visitor areas in the national park system.
2) Provide basic cell phone service at all major visitor areas in national park units, as well as along most roads and at major sites such as trailheads.
3) Deliver timely, park-focused information within national parks through smart phones, tablets and computers.
4) Give individual parks discretion on where cell phone service is available, and whether the service provides full or emergency-only service.
5) Identify and employ best available and practical technologies that minimize visual impacts of cell and internet access systems.
6) Create special gateway zones at park entry points using downloadable data to replace both low-power radio systems and printed material hand-outs.
7) Design a system that is financially sustainable, generating revenues adequate to install, maintain and upgrade internet access. To do this, concessioners are offered the opportunity to develop and operate these systems, either individually or through a collaborative venture with other concessioners.
8) Offer additional bandwidth where possible to park visitors on a fee basis.
9) Coordinate efforts of the NPS, concessioners and friends organizations to create official park apps which can be readily downloaded to all major mobile channels, and which work to aid park visits, even when not connected to the internet, through GPS and other technologies.

Deputy Director O’Dell delivered the recommendations to the NPS Regional Directors and assigned John Wessels (NPS Intermountain Regional Director) and Sue Waldron (NPS Assistant Director for Communications and lead for the NPS “Go Digital” component of A Call to Action) to work with NPHA. The list is now being reviewed by the regional and park teams and final selections of five (maybe more!) sites will occur early in January. A strategy session in February involving NPS, NPHA and communications firms is likely.

Opponents of the connective service argue that intrusive technology goes against the idea of parks being a refuge from modernity. That it interferes with solitude. A press release from the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility even stated that the plan was "a giant step toward ‘Disney-fying’ park interpretation..."

There is also the concern of distracted drivers on national park roads. There are reports of wildlife being killed as a result of drivers texting and talking on cell phones in some of the larger parks.

Then there's the argument that outdoor adventurers have, and will continue to abuse the increased connectivity to call for unneeded rescue efforts. There's a sense that some people are more willing to engage in reckless behavior, knowing that there's a safety net of emergency responders just a phone call away.

What are your thoughts? Do cell phones belong in the wilderness? Are Wi-Fi hot spots important to have in certain areas, such as near visitor centers? If you've reached a scenic overlook, or the top of a mountain after a tough hike, would you feel that some of the wilderness experience has been degraded if several people around you are talking on cell phones?


Jeff
Hiking in Glacier National Park

Are Threats of Budget Cuts Closing National Parks Overblown?

A lot is being made recently on how Congressional budget cuts could possibly close several national parks around the country. Earlier in the month, Craig Obey, Senior Vice President for the National Parks Conservation Association, published this statement on the NPCA website:

“With looming closures throughout the national park system if scheduled cuts occur in January through the budgetary sequester, we are encouraged to hear President Obama and congressional leaders focusing on the necessity of a balanced approach to addressing the federal deficit. In fact, the first leg of that stool was the Budget Control Act, which already cut significant funds for national parks and other worthwhile programs. It is time for our leaders to bring more balance to the equation.

“If Congress fails to find a solution by January, more than $200 million dollars could be cut from the National Park Service budget, which would likely close visitor centers and campgrounds, and could put as many as 9,000 rangers and other park employees out of a job. These cuts could close as many as 200 park sites across the country.

“According to a recent poll, 92 percent of Americans believe funding for national parks should either remain steady or be increased. Sequester or not, our national parks will face a tough decade ahead. They cannot afford additional cuts after two consecutive years of cuts and a budget in today’s dollars that is 15 percent less than it was a decade ago.

“America’s 398 national parks – from the Statue of Liberty to Yellowstone’s geysers, to the magnificent Grand Canyon – are treasured places that tell the stories of our country’s shared heritage, drawing tourists, and tourist dollars from throughout the world. We call on the President and Congress to find a balanced approach that doesn’t mindlessly cut national parks, which generate more than $30 billion in economic activity each year.”

I'm going to have to take the contrarian view here, and say that these fears are simply overblown. Whenever the idea is floated that parks could be closed due to budget cuts, it conjures up images of the Great Smoky Mountains or Glacier National Park being shut down. In reality, those headlines are referring to national park units that most people have never heard of, such as Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument in Texas, or River Raisin National Battlefield Park in Michigan. The cynical side of me thinks that these assertions are meant to scare people into coughing up more of their tax dollars.

Right now there are 398 national park units, which include national parks, monuments, battlefields, lakeshores, seashores, historic sites, etc. Based on the current budget shortfalls within the National Park Service - even before the proposed cuts - it's pretty obvious that the NPS has over-extended itself. From my perch it's clear that the NPS has taken on responsibilities for far too many properties beyond the scope of their charter.

Wouldn't it be better if the federal government sold parks such as Devils Postpile National Monument, or Bent's Old Fort National Historic Site, back to the states to be managed under state park systems? Or, what if some parks, such as Weir Farm National Historic Site, or Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site, were sold to private entities - with certain stipulations - and run as for-profit organizations, or maybe even as a non-profit foundation, similar to Thomas Jefferson's Monticello?

In my view, this would allow the NPS to concentrate its limited resources on running the parks and monuments that deserve national recognition and preservation, more efficiently.

What are your thoughts?


Jeff
Hiking in Glacier National Park

Revised Bicycle Plan Allows Greater Access to National Parks

Cyclists rejoice! The National Park Service announced today that it will expand bicycle access in parks nationwide, while preserving the Service’s responsibility to prohibit bikes in wilderness and other areas where they would have significant impact on the environment or visitor safety.

The new rule, available online here, gives park superintendents the authority to allow bicycles on roads that are closed to the motoring public – like fire roads and roads used by park maintenance vehicles. Bikes are already allowed on park roads that are open to vehicles.

This rule moves National Park Service decision making about where bike-use is appropriate from a regulatory to a planning process, while retaining rigorous environmental compliance requirements and mandatory public comment on proposals to open existing or new trails to bikes.

New trails outside of developed areas will continue to require a park-specific special regulation approved by the director of the National Park Service.

The National Park Service will continue to prohibit bicycle use in eligible, study, proposed, recommended, and designated wilderness areas.

The final rule, 36 CFR § 4.30, will be published in the Federal Register on July 6 and will go into effect 30 days later.


Jeff
Hiking in Glacier.com

New Military Pass for Free Access to National Parks and Other Public Lands

As part of the Joining Forces initiative to support our nation’s service members and their families, several U.S. government agencies have announced an annual pass to active duty service members and their dependents, granting free access to more than 2,000 national parks, wildlife refuges, national forests, and other public lands around the nation in the coming years.

Beginning on Armed Forces Day on May 19th, active duty service men and women – Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, and activated National Guard and Reserves – can obtain the new military version of the America the Beautiful National Parks and Federal Recreation Lands Annual Pass. The pass will be accepted at National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Army Corps sites that charge entrance or standard amenity fees.

The initiative was announced yesterday during a ceremony at Colonial National Historical Park in Yorktown, Virginia where Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, Director of the National Park Service Jonathan B. Jarvis and Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) Jo-Ellen Darcy distributed the first passes to one member from each of the military’s five branches.

Military members and their dependents can pick up a pass at any national park or wildlife refuge that charges an entrance fee or other selected sites. Members must show a current, valid military identification card to obtain their pass. The pass is also available to dependents of active duty personnel. A list of participating sites is available here.

Where there are entrance fees, the pass covers the owner and accompanying passengers in a single, private, non-commercial vehicle at recreation sites that charge per vehicle. At sites where per-person entrance fees are charged, it covers the pass owner and three accompanying adults age 16 and older. There is no entry fee for children 15 and under.

While the pass is not available to veterans and retirees, many of these individuals are eligible for other discounted passes, such as the Senior Pass, granting lifetime access to U.S. citizens over 62 for $10, and the Access Pass granting free lifetime access for permanently disabled U.S. citizens.

For more information on the pass, please click here.


Jeff
Hiking in Glacier.com

New App Aids Exploration of America’s National Parks

Planning a trip to a national park? Want to keep a “life list” of the parks you visit? Meet your new favorite app.

Developed by the National Park Service’s long-time nonprofit educational partner, Eastern National, the new app provides links to all 397 national park websites for quick access to trip planning. The app also allows users to keep track of the parks they’ve visited and add photos and descriptions of the trip. You can also make a wish list of parks to check out. Every park on your list gets a red push pin on the app map.

“This app is a terrific new tool that will excite our visitors,” said National Park Service Director Jonathan B. Jarvis. “It’s a great combination of easy access to useful information and cool features that will help millions of people capture their visits to their national parks. And what better time to download and get started than April’s National Park Week when all national parks waive entrance fees and invite you to come visit for free.”

The app is designed to complement Eastern’s wildly popular Passport to Your National Parks® program by helping users find passport stamp cancellation stations in parks so they can record the location and date of their visit.

“For many people, a visit to a national park isn’t complete until they’ve stamped their passport,” said George Minnucci, President of Eastern National. “The app will help visitors plan their next trip, find Passport cancellation stations in each park, and share the memories they make while visiting parks.”

“I applaud Eastern for embracing our ‘Go Digital’ challenge to use technology to help enhance park experiences for visitors,” said Jarvis. “This is a natural extension of the high quality educational products they have created for our visitors for so many years.”

The app is a free download at the iTunes store. It is currently available for iPhones and iPads. An Android version will be added later, as will additional features.


Jeff
Hiking in Glacier.com

Senate Bill could force Cyclists off Roads in some National Parks

Cyclists may want to make note of legislation in the U.S. Senate that could force cyclists off roads in some national parks.

The draft of the Senate's transportation authorization bill, S. 1813 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, includes language that would introduce a mandatory sidepath law on roads in our National Parks and other Federal lands.

Section § 203 (d) (p. 226), states:

(d) BICYCLE SAFETY.—The Secretary of the appropriate Federal land management agency shall prohibit the use of bicycles on each federally owned road that has a speed limit of 30 miles per hour or greater and an adjacent paved path for use by bicycles within 100 yards of the road.

Based on the surface of this language, it doesn't sound like the Going-to-the-Sun Road in Glacier would be impacted by this law, simply because there aren't any bike paths that exist next to the road. However, according to Andy Clarke, President of the League of American Bicyclists:

What precedent does this set? Two pretty awful ones come quickly to mind: why stop at Federal land highways; and if roads with higher than 30 mph speed limits are so unsafe for bicyclists to share with motorists, bicyclists shouldn’t be using them, period.

You can read his full analysis on this piece of legislation here. The League of American Bicyclists is also organizing a petition to strip this language out of the bill.

Thanks to the National Parks Traveler for alerting me on this one.


Jeff
Hiking in Glacier.com

National Parks factoid of the day

What percentage of the U.S. surface area is designated as national park?

Answer: 3.5%

There are 58 U.S. national parks. The largest is the Wrangell-St Elias National Park and Preserve in Alaska, which is two-and-a-half times the size of the country of Wales.

You can find a few other interesting factoids by clicking here.


Jeff
Hiking in Glacier.com